« McCauliffe vs the House of Delegates, So far, he has lost. | Main | Saudi Arabia turns away from the jihadis in Syria. »

09 March 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

robt willmann

In the interview on the PBS Newshour, Gen. Martin Dempsey was carefully couching his words about military action in terms of Article 5 of the NATO agreement. Articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) say--

"Article 5:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

-on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [no longer applicable], on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

-on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."


After adding Turkey and Greece in 1951, Germany in 1954, and Spain in 1981, all was stable up to and through the collapse of the Soviet Union, which should have been the end of NATO. But, as you can see on the right side of the web page, beginning in 1997 through 1 April 2009, 12 more countries were added to NATO: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania.

When we look at our friend the map, what do we see along the western side of Ukraine? NATO.


Squeezed in between part of Romania and southwestern Ukraine is Moldova, which I think has a significant and vocal Russian population. If eastern and southern Ukraine move to secede, Moldova could become a hot spot. Plus, if southern Ukraine all the way across past Odessa secedes, then what will be left of western Ukraine for its "nationalists" will be landlocked, because Ukraine's southern border is the Black Sea.

Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday, 8 March, a "diplomatic ultimatum", in that, "He made clear that continued military escalation and provocation in Crimea or elsewhere in Ukraine, along with steps to annex Crimea to Russia would close any available space for diplomacy, and he urged utmost restraint," the official said.


What does Kerry mean, "... would close any available space for diplomacy," we might ask?

If the space for diplomacy is closed, then what? Kerry's alleged threat is not based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which means he and Gen. Dempsey are saying very different things.


The term is for two years renewable. Dempsey is on his second term. Only one chair has served more than two terms Earle Wheeler served three terms through the Vietnam war.


I apologize or not being clearer in my comment. What I pasted in my initial comment was my correction of the Harper piece; I thought you might be able to copy that and replace the original. Best wishes.



"After adding Turkey and Greece in 1951, Germany in 1954, and Spain in 1981, all was stable up to and through the collapse of the Soviet Union, which should have been the end of NATO."

Yes, NATO fulfilled its purpose and the US should re-evalutae what is in the national interest of the United States. Fighting for Estonian/Albania or any other country is probably not it.

As to Kerry, he's proving once again that if the flip-flop fits, wear it. In this case he shoved them right in that big mouth of his.

Bill H

Like most here, I am an admirer of General Dempsey and consider him to be a valuable voice of reason, but isn't it a bit inappropriate for a military person to be assuring that "we will honor treaties" and such language? It seems to me that he is entering into the arena of politics, which military is not supposed to do.


In reply to JohnH 09 March 2014 at 06:09 PM

Russia is no longer in a state of collapse. They have competent military forces around 70% per cent of whom as our host has pointed out are professionals rather conscripts. They can strangle Ukraine economically and ensure that a large proportion of its population quite literally freezes to death next winter. Added to all of those is the fact that the Ukraine has a substantial Russian population. Then there's the damage they can do to Western Europe simply by shutting off the Gas and halting or delaying payment on imports. Doing so would bring the German economy and thus the rest of the EU crashing to a halt.

In the light of all the above I don't give a tinker's curse what the 'chicken hawks in charge of US foreign policy' - as you so aptly put it, intend. There is a difference between having an intent or desire if you prefer that word and having the wherewithal to achieve your desires.



Bill H

IMO Dempsey wishes to remind the Russians that an attack on a NATO country would be an attack on the US. A treaty signed by the US and ratified y the senate is US law. it is not a matter of policy to know that such law must be honored. therefore, IMO Dempsey is well within his duty to mention his. pl



“They can strangle Ukraine economically and ensure that a large proportion of its population quite literally freezes to death next winter.”

I wouldn’t worry too much about them freezing to death. They can travel to the Mediterranean coast of EU member states Italy, France, Spain and Greece. It’s warm there in the winter and after all aren’t those nations’ EU leaders pledging the lives of their citizens in the defense of freedom in the Ukraine? A couple of million refugees who want a better life in the EU will surely be greeted with open arms by their fellow Europeans.

SAC Brat

The Ukraine is covered on the http://www.duffelblog.com

nick b

SAC Brat,

That site is howler! Thanks for the laughs and the link.


Where is Dershowitz when we need him?

Excerpts from an article about the illustrious colleagues of "Yatz, the important Ukrainian visitor to White House:
Neo-fascists in Cabinet Posts
"In 2010 the official Svoboda (a party supported by the US) website carried a statement reading in part: “To create a truly Ukrainian Ukraine in the cities of the East and South, only one lustration will not be enough, we will need to cancel parliamentarism, ban all political parties, nationalize the entire industry, all media, prohibit the importation of any literature to Ukraine from Russia… completely replace the leaders of the civil service, education management, military (especially in the East), physically liquidate all Russian-speaking intellectuals and all Ukrainophobes (fast, without a trial shot. Registering Ukrainophobes can be done here by any member of Svoboda), execute all members of the anti-Ukrainian political parties…”
There is more:
Tyanhybok (a member of Ukrainian Parliament and supporter of Yatsenko) calls for the liberation of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia." He "visited Germany in 2010 to stand in solidarity with John Damanjuk, the Ukrainian-American convicted of abetting mass murder in death camps in Poland. Around that time close aide Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn established a think tank originally called “the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.”...
"Tyahnybok has appeared at a public rally with U.S. Sen. John McCain, and had a cordial meeting last month with U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs Victoria Nuland."
(Nulan is Jewish and she is obviously quite comfortable with this vicious judophob since his activities advance her career).
"As the Soviet leadership faced the profound humiliation of the collapse of the alliance, George W. Bush (commander in chief during the first Persian Gulf War, who proclaimed “a New World Order”) assured Mikhail Gorbachev that following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact the U.S. would not expand eastwards. But during the Bill Clinton era, the U.S. did precisely that."
The events in Ukraine represent the "attempts to implement the official Pentagon strategy of “full-spectrum dominance" and the "ultimate expulsion of the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol."
"the U.S. has over 700 military bases outside its borders... The Russians have a dozen bases outside Russian territory, all on the periphery of the country. No one in his or her right mind (this excludes the hysterical hawks in Congress and the neocons who help shape their views) would suggest that Russia poses a gathering threat to U.S. “national security.” But rational Russians might well question why NATO wants to encircle them. Russia’s been invaded from the west innumerable times (including 1610-12, 1708, 1812, 1941-45)....Its people no doubt feel consternation at the tightening of the NATO noose."
And a cherry on a pie:
"here has been a credible report, based on a leaked phone conversation between EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton and Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, that the sniper fire that occurred in Maidan Square, attributed by the opposition to Yanukovich’s security forces in order justify the coup, was actually arranged by neo-fascist forces. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov demands an investigation. But this report has not been mentioned prominently in the U.S. press, which wants to keep things simple."



As I recall from the interview Dempsey stated he has a line to his counterparts and has spoken to them at least twice in the past few days. I think that will acomplish more to prevent a military escallation than John Kerry's statements.


Colonel, do you have any insight on the papers on question?

Bill H

Fair enough, I see the point. Thanks. Maybe I'm just too touchy after the likes of Gen. Petraeus.


"Russia is increasingly left with no choice but to ‘declassify’ the privileged information in its possession regarding the western intelligence operation that forced the power grab in Kiev. It is extraordinary that Russia handed over to the UN Security Council the information with the request to hold an impartial international investigation.

Of course, any such move for impartial investigation will be vetoed by the United States. Russia knows it, too, but then, there is also an information war going on today regarding the situation around Ukraine and from Moscow’s point of view, as tensions keep rising, it has become imperative to expose the US’ narrative to be sheer baloney."

This is the card I have been expecting Russia to play. No one in the West will address the question of why would Yanukovich (whose friends say he has the spine of a jellyfish) use deadly force after signing an agreement for a transitional government?



Who are you quoting? pl


M K Bhadrakumar in the article posted by Anna-Marina.

The way Neocons operate with no discretion or discipline, I figured Russia had all the evidence they needed to make a public case of international meddling.

different clue

If it becomes clear that the UNSC will do nothing with or about this information, might the Russian government give parts or all of it to Wikileaks in order to expose and discredit the targeted agencies so thoroughly as to make future such operations actually harder for them?

Norbert M Salamon

with respect, Sir, in the years of the present and just past President the principle of constitutional action [be it as [per Amendment or as per Senate ratified treaty] is/was applicable only at the pleasure of the President.
This observation does not mean to contradict your statement about the applicability of NATO Treaty as part of the Constitution of USA, and as such applicable in theory at least if a NATO member is attacked by a foreign state's armed forces.


different clue,

The first step would be to show all the members the bs of the western narrative. Second is to present to China, India and others the facts of the crisis. Third would be for other press outlets in the world using the file to expose the operations as you conclude (as M K Bhadrakumar has done). The precedent was set when Russia made public the private conversation with Bandar, so I was waiting for them to make public their intel info. What truly bothers me about this crisis is the question of what is becoming of the United States. If we are going to be an Empire, then eventually the Imperial Court will want to quash all criticism, and criticizers.

An interesting aside, since the fall of 11, I watch CCTV for news and only turn MSM news when a crisis like Ukraine breaks. Yesterday my daily paper had a story that the Administration was going to get China on their side in this diplomatic conflict. CCTV uses breaks in programs to advertise tourist spots and investment zones. A new addition this week is an advertisement for the city of Manzhouli, the convergence of Russia and China. Those Ivy league lunkheads have their answer.


any thoughts on this:




Do you think this e-mail is really from this assistant army attache? pl



Why would a military attache be using social media from a work work computer? Why's he on linked in unless he's job hunting?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad